Return to Transcripts main page

Fareed Zakaria GPS

Israeli Military Strikes Hezbollah in Lebanon; Israeli Officials Arrives in Egypt for Ceasefire, Hostage Release Talks; The State of War Between Russia and Ukraine. Interview With Carnegie Endowment Senior Fellow Michael Kofman; The State Of War Between Russia And Ukraine; Interview With Financial Times U.S. National Editor Edward Luce; Interview With Columbia Journalism School Dean Emeritus Steve Coll. Aired 10-11a

Aired August 25, 2024 - 10:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[10:00:42]

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: This is GPS, the GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I'm Bianna Golodryga coming to you live from New York. Fareed is off today. But we have an interview of his to show you later. Also on the program Israel struck across its northern border overnight. The IDF says it destroyed thousands of Hezbollah terror targets. And Hezbollah says it struck back.

Meanwhile, in negotiators for both Israel and Hamas have recently arrived in Cairo, ready for ceasefire talks. We'll talk about all the developments in the Middle East with a great panel. Then we'll get the latest on Ukraine's incursion into Russia's Kursk region with Vladimir Putin's response.

And at the DNC, Kamala Harris was officially crowned as the Democratic nominee. And now there are only 72 days left until election day. I'll talk to Ed Luce about what the world witnessed in Chicago this week.

The IDF says it struck terror targets in Lebanon, locations where it says Hezbollah was preparing to fire missiles and rockets toward Israeli territory. Israeli president Isaac Herzog said on X that the action, quote, "epitomizes Israel's right and duty to defend itself and its citizens against the threat of terrorism."

For its part, Hezbollah says its own military operations were completed after hundreds of rockets were launched from Lebanon. This comes as the tensions in the Middle East have been ever higher in recent weeks after the assassinations of leaders of both Hamas and Hezbollah.

Now, despite it all, negotiators from Israel and Hamas are now in Cairo for ceasefire talks. So let me bring in today's wonderful panel, Suzanne Maloney is a vice president at the Brookings Institution where she directs the Foreign Policy Program. And Amos Harel is a military correspondent and defense analyst for the Israeli newspaper "Haaretz."

Welcome to you both. Amos, let me start with you. So Israeli warplanes bombed dozens of

targets we know in Southern Lebanon, according to the prime minister, destroying thousands of rockets and missile launchers aimed directly at Israel just before they were programmed to fire in the direction of Tel Aviv. And a senior Israeli security official tells me today that they managed to destroy two-thirds of the pieces of munitions that Hezbollah was planning to launch.

We should note, we reached out to Hezbollah for a response. We are awaiting their response. But from what you know what specifically was Hezbollah targeting and how big of a blow was this to their military operation?

AMOS HAREL, MILITARY CORRESPONDENT AND DEFENSE ANALYST, HAARETZ: I think Israel's preemptive strike was quite successful as far as we can tell right now. And this is a few hours after the actual events. Hezbollah, as we know, has promised revenge retaliation against Israel for quite some time. The decision was made to react after the assassination of Fuad Shukr, who's their head of their military wing killed in Beirut in late July.

And apparently the plan was to launch hundreds of rockets towards Israeli military positions and bases in the north closer to the Lebanese border. And also a specific attack I think mostly using attack drones towards the Glilot area, which is slightly north of the Tel Aviv -- of the center of Tel Aviv city. This is a place where there are many different intelligence branches located. One of them, according to international media, is the headquarters of the Israeli Mossad. And all of these attacks apparently did not succeed.

GOLODRYGA: Suzanne, Hezbollah has responded by firing dozens of rockets into Northern Israel, but now they say that they are, quote, "finished for the day" calling it a successful operation.

What more will you be watching for in the hours and days to come in terms of any potential escalation here? We know that Israel has reopened its airport and it appears that things have calmed down for now.

SUZANNE MALONEY, FOREIGN POLICY VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Well, I'll be watching for two factors. One is that we expect Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, to speak within the hour and while the initial statements from Hezbollah seem to suggest that they are prepared to stand down for now, they've also described what they launched as really the first stage of a multistage response to the assassination of Fuad Shukr.

[10:05:10]

And so I think that there is some expectation that there may be a next stage and it may in fact come from another one of Iran's proxies such as the Houthi militia in Yemen. So that would be what I'll be watching for in the near term.

GOLODRYGA: Amos, in terms of this specific strike, Barak Ravid of Axios is reporting that they had been coordinated with the United States in terms of intelligence gathering, 48 hours before this strike, though, Israel says obviously it acted alone. What more do you know about any potential role the U.S. played in terms of intelligence gathering? Obviously we know they have a significant presence in the region right now. And the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is expected as well.

HAREL: Yes. General Brown is here. I think he arrived in Jordan yesterday evening. He might be in Israel already. He's keeping close contact with his Israeli counterparts over this. I'm sure Barak is right, that intelligence was indeed collected by both nations. But the Americans far as we can tell for the time being are mostly involved in preparing for defense. As Suzanne has noted, there's the possibility that the Houthis from Yemen would join in as well.

They have their own score to settle after an Israeli attack on the Port of Hodeidah about six or seven weeks ago and I think that so we haven't seen the end of this year, but America and Israel are still closely connected over this and as far as, again, as far as we can tell, as we speak, this seems less likely that the whole region would erupt into a full-scale war. I'm not sure that this was the -- anybody's plan to be begin with.

But during the last few days while Israel waited for a possible strike from Hezbollah there were quite some fears that this could escalate this way. The fact that Israel was successful at this preemptive attack means there's less of a chance of everything now, escalating into a full scale regional war.

GOLODRYGA: Suzanne, would you agree with that? Do you think given what we saw transpire overnight in this surprise attack that Iran, which it appears may be reluctant or hasn't yet figured out how exactly it will respond to the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh will now react to this? The supreme leader said that a strike may come at any given time and view that as psychological warfare in and of itself. But how do you think Iran views what's happened in the last 12 hours in terms of their planning?

MALONEY: Well, I think we've seen a notable degree of prudence from Iranian leaders in the aftermath of the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, which took place in Tehran on the very day that Haniyeh had met with Iran's supreme leader and had attended the inauguration of Iran's new president. So it was truly humiliation for the Islamic Republic. And certainly in the aftermath of the unprecedented strike by Iran, the barrage of missiles and drones on April 13th and 14th on the Israeli homeland, there was very high concern that the Iranians might react in similar fashion to the assassination of Haniyeh.

Instead, we've seen some restraint, some readiness to at least talk publicly about diplomatic off-ramps to the current crisis and apparent support for efforts to achieve a ceasefire. And so I don't think that we're likely to see that position change in the aftermath of the successful Israeli preemption of a Hezbollah strike. But I do think that the temperature remains very high in the region.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And we have seen the link both from Iran and even the United States between a ceasefire and hostage deal in any sort of response from Iran in particular.

All right. Stay with us. Next on GPS, the two sides have gathered in Cairo for those ceasefire talks. Could they come to an agreement? We'll discuss with our panel when GPS returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:13:32]

GOLODRYGA: Well, as tensions continue to mount in the Middle East, ceasefire talks continue in Cairo today.

Back with Suzanne Maloney from the Brookings Institute and "Haaretz" journalist Amos Harel.

Amos, so the Israeli delegation is in Cairo as well, and we hear statements of optimism, perhaps muted optimism, from the United States at this point, but you've remained pessimistic about both Netanyahu and Yahya Sinwar agreeing to a deal at this point for two very different reasons. Can you explain why?

HAREL: Well, I'll suggest caution. It doesn't have a lot to do with what happened in Lebanon. And by the way, because these negotiations were ongoing for quite some time, but 10 and a half months into this conflict it's quite clear that neither Sinwar in Gaza or Netanyahu in Jerusalem are too keen on reaching a deal right now.

As far as Sinwar, when he decided on this massacre on October 7th, his decision to act, he was hoping that Hezbollah in Iran will join him and that this would become a regional war. If there's a slight chance for this plan to be initiated or implemented now than he has no reason to rush into an agreement. Regarding Netanyahu this is mostly political. He's still tied in with his ultra right-wing partners in the coalition, Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir.

And both of them have announced that they wouldn't agree to any kind of concessions regarding the possible hostage deal.

[10:15:05]

And if this is the case, his coalition may collapse because of a deal. It's true that the majority of Israeli people support a deal in spite of the fact that there are many concessions expected from Israel. And yet from Netanyahu's political motives, it's very, very hard to see how a deal can be reached and he would still remain in power.

GOLODRYGA: And it's not just the majority of the Israeli public. I mean, you've seen a real schism in the past few weeks between the defense establishment and his own government, and the prime minister. The defense establishment saying now maybe the only remaining time for a deal to bring some of these hostages home alive. And there's also increased concern, especially from Defense Minister Gallant, about the lack of a deal then resulting perhaps an increasing the odds of a regional war and focused mostly to the north there in fighting with Hezbollah. And so my question to you is, why would someone like Benjamin

Netanyahu, who spent the majority of his career really being risk averse, risk losing that all now remaining steadfast to not budging on a deal at the expense of a possible regional war?

HAREL: Bianna, I think you have it perfectly right. But Netanyahu himself, this is a different version of Netanyahu than the one we knew during all those years. He's still with his back against the wall because of his criminal problems, the legal proceedings against him. And he's fighting for his survival and he wants to survive by any means necessary. And therefore, and this is different than the old Netanyahu, he's more willing to take risks.

I mean, if you've been told most Israelis that this war would go on for so long and that Netanyahu would keep preaching that we should continue until reaching what he calls a final or decisive victory. I think most of us wouldn't have believed it in the past, but this is where we are right now and it mostly depends on him what you see on a daily basis is Netanyahu struggling sometimes behind the scenes, but sometimes publicly with his own generals, with his own defense minister over that.

Both Gallant and most of the leaders of the Israeli security agencies have been telling him for months now that the war in Gaza should be over, that the hostage deal should be reached, and that Israel should spend most of its time preparing for a possible major military conflict with Hezbollah and perhaps Iran.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, the defense and security establishment, Suzanne, has really been in lockstep with the Biden Administration's approach to focusing on getting a ceasefire and hostage deal in place.

I'm curious to get your thoughts to what we heard from Democratic nominee Kamala Harris' candidacy last week accepting that at the DNC and her beech she addressed the war in Gaza and talked about the continued support her administration would offer Israel, but also spoke to the suffering on the Gaza side among the Palestinians. Let me play some sound.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I will always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself. President Biden and I are working to end this war such that Israel is secure, the hostages are released, the suffering in Gaza ends, and the Palestinian people can realize their right to dignity, security, freedom and self- determination.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: Suzanne, she also went on to say, I will never hesitate to take whatever action is necessary to defend our forces and our interests against Iran and Iran-backed terrorists.

I'm interested from you how all of this played out regionally, not just from, from Israel's standpoint but its neighboring countries.

MALONEY: Well, I think Kamala Harris' position is not manifestly different than that of the Biden administration that she serves in. In fact, her team has been deeply engaged with counterparts in the White House in terms of the diplomatic efforts to bring about a ceasefire and to plan for the day after a war. And so, you know, this is very much fundamental in terms of her own position.

I don't think that the region is anticipating a vast difference in a Kamala Harris administration for the very same reason that they have seen her and her team out there in lockstep with the diplomatically leads and the military from the Pentagon that have been deeply involved with trying to bring this war to a close and to in fact make arrangements for the release of the hostages, and for a future of security and better governance and reconstruction in Gaza.

So I think that there are -- there's a lot of anticipation among some in the American public, particularly the progressive elements of the Democratic Party that sense in Kamala Harris perhaps a different position.

[10:20:08]

I don't think that that's correct, although I think it's also very important that she is in fact able to speak with credibility, sincerity and legitimacy about the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for a state of their own.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And she didn't go as far as calling for a state of their own, but it was notable that that she spoke to their suffering as much as she spoke to condemning Hamas and the atrocities perpetrated on October 7th as well.

All right. Suzanne Maloney, Amos Harel, thank you so much for your time. We appreciate it.

Well, next on GPS, it's been nearly three weeks since Ukraine launched a shock incursion into Russia's Kursk region. Can Kyiv keep the territory it captured and how is it affecting the wider war? I'll ask Michael Kofman at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:25:20]

GOLODRYGA: Right now, the Ukraine is raging on two main battle fronts. The first is in Russia's Kursk region where a surprise Ukrainian invasion has seized about 490 square miles but is now slowing. About 300 miles south of there, near the city of Pokrovsk, Russia is making its own slow gains in Ukrainian territory.

Joining me now is one of the leading military experts on the Ukraine war, Michael Kofman is a senior fellow in the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Michael, welcome to the program. So in terms of the operation that's unfolding there in Kursk, what is Ukraine's ultimate plan? How long are they expecting to stay there from all the information you're gleaning from your sources?

MICHAEL KOFMAN, SENIOR FELLOW, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT: Thanks, Bianna. I think it's looking clear that Ukraine is encouraged to stay for a long period of time. Ukrainian forces are entrenching and slowly expanding the area that they actually control. Ukraine has signaled that they're going to be setting up maybe some kind of military administration and developing plans for a more prolonged period of time.

I think they'll likely going to try to defend this area and establish a buffer. They are still anchoring out that it's filling out the areas that they control to make them more of a defensible space, but more than likely Ukraine either intends to try to beat Russia into counterattacking in Kursk, setting up a grinding battle and forcing them to divert a much larger percentage of their forces from the rest of the frontline.

Or, alternatively, hold it long enough such that they have it as a bargaining chip so they can try to trade it with Russia in some potential follow-on negotiations, assuming that that even happens.

GOLODRYGA: But Russia, as you know, is not diverting its resources as perhaps Ukraine had intended that it would. And you noted this operation was bold and carried with it an up-shot, but also carried a lot of risks as well. We've spent a lot of time talking about the manpower shortage that Ukraine specifically faces. Russia will eventually get there as well. But you said that this is perhaps something that Ukraine could have done more effectively next year.

Why do you think this happened now?

KOFMAN: So it's true that the Russia is pulling right now to Kursk are either conscripts from deep inside the country or those units deployed in second priority France and Ukrainians such as Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, maybe Kharkiv, and still advancing towards across and these other areas of Donetsk, although we'll see what the Russian force structure ultimately develops around Kursk.

Now, my sense says it is true Ukraine probably could have been in a better position or at least would have had a lot less risk doing an operation like this in 2025. It could potentially stabilize its manpower situation this year, held Russia to incremental gains, and Russian forces might have been exhausted by the end of the year or beginning the next year. Either way, the risk would have been much lower.

Now, I of course don't know what Ukraine is thinking else, but my own suspicion is that Ukraine may be felt that they didn't have a lot of time in terms of the political calendar and saw, but they needed to do something in the event that political winds changed in the United States and other Western partners and Ukraine might have been compelled into negotiations and its hand may not have been as strong as it wanted to be.

That's one potential argument. And another one is that maybe Ukrainian military leadership thought that a bold offensive like this was important to raise morale amongst troops and it could lessen the pressure along the front that has pulled Russian forces away. And that the downside, the risk isn't nearly that high.

GOLODRYGA: And it does appear to have raised morale. But of course that could be fleeting in and of itself.

Mike, it doesn't appear that the U.S. was given a heads up about this planned incursion. Do you have any sense -- we have readouts between the defense minister in Ukraine and Lloyd Austin here in the United States. But do you have any sense of how closely the two sides are now operating together given that Russia -- that Ukraine remains on Russian territory.

KOFMAN: Well, Bianna, I think you're right. It doesn't look like the United States or other Ukrainian partners were given advance notice. I could think of why that might have been the case.

Now, since the operation began, it is clear that Ukraine is conducting HIMARS strikes in Russian territory against dynamic targets, and so that suggested their flight be some degree of coordination taking place between Ukraine and its partners and allies regarding this operation.

They've sent the words which I personally can't say I don't know, but I suspect that Ukraine is getting at least some support in the conduct of these types of operations.

GOLODRYGA: We do know that equipment losses appear to be mounting, though. for Ukraine and this is the new equipment that Ukraine just received after waiting so long for that $60 billion in aid package finally agreed to in spring by the United States.

Let's turn to the situation down in Donetsk, which is not looking good. As we noted, Russia's drive toward Pokrovsk is gaining momentum as we speak. It's seen as a logistics hub for the Ukrainian army. How close is Russia to capturing the city and how significant would that be if Pokrovsk fell into Russian hands?

KOFMAN: So, Russian forces appear to be at what you could call the last main line of the defense. And they've been advancing at a steady pace. The challenge isn't just the city of Pokrovsk, which is a major transit hub. I've traveled to it many a times on my journeys in Ukraine. And the city is important but also the broader Russian advance, which threatens Ukrainian flanks in an effort to create a larger salient around cities like Kurakhivka to advance past the city of New York towards Toretsk, and also pressing Ukrainian forces around Vuhledar. That is the overall Russian advances in the southern part of the Donetsk.

So, I think the city is significant, but we probably also should not overstate the case in terms of what will happen if Russia captures Pokrovsk. A lot depends on whether or not the Russian military still has the momentum and still has the capacity to keep advancing. So, we'll have to see how the next several weeks play out. And Ukraine did take on some risk across the front line in deploying its reserves and some of the most capable units to Kursk. Some of them did come from this region. I wouldn't say all of them. But in general, there's a big question mark as to whether or not Ukraine now has reserves available to counter any potential breakthroughs should they happen in this region.

GOLODRYGA: All right. Mike Kofman, always appreciate your analysis and expertise. Thank you so much for joining us. Obviously, we'll be paying close attention to what plays out there in the next weeks and months to come.

And next for us on GPS, how did the rest of the world view the Democratic convention in Chicago last week? I'll ask the FT's Ed Luce after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:36:36]

GOLODRYGA: Well, it has been a wild ride for the Democratic Party ever since President Biden's disastrous debate performance in late June. But this weekend, Chicago, the party appeared more unified than ever as it officially anointed Kamala Harris its candidate for president.

The four nights were filled with stars, of music, movies, and politics. One of the latter, Bill Clinton, offered Harris a new expected moniker, the president of joy. In her own speech, the vice president made a forceful case against former President Donald Trump and for a promising future.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: A chance to chart a new way forward.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: Edward Luce was in the arena in Chicago this week, taking careful notes. He is a columnist and the U.S. national editor for the "Financial Times," and he joins me now. Ed, it is good to see you.

So, the title of your latest piece in the "Financial Times" is "The astonishing metamorphosis of Kamala Harris, her shift from indifferent vice president to source of Obama-scale enthusiasm has caught almost everyone unawares."

And do you really speak for so many that have watched this past month that really has felt like a year go from a vice president, who just four weeks ago was likely riding her vice-presidential acceptance speech, to now the candidate for the Democratic ticket, giving a very forceful speech and reintroducing herself to the American public. How do you think she fared in that speech?

EDWARD LUCE, U.S. NATIONAL EDITOR, FINANCIAL TIMES: I thought -- it's great to be with you, Bianna. I thought it was a really effective speech. She didn't try and sort of reach Obama levels of poetic oratory. She didn't try to be a sort of Bill Clinton explainer in chief. She was very much the prosecutor. Kamala Harris very clearly, very simply, very I think efficiently laying out what kind of president she would be. And making it about you, the voter. I think, you know, one of the sort of signal -- errors of the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 was to have this tagline, I'm with her.

And I think what Kamala Harris did was really convey that she's with you, which is to make it all about the voter rather than about the sort of historic fact that she would be the first woman president, and of course a non-white one too.

And so, I think, you know, that attempt to identify her family history, her personal story with the sort of broader theme about the middle class, the big tent, the stars and stripes waving, USA chanting Democratic convention crowd. I think that was really very effective.

GOLODRYGA: It is fascinating that a sitting vice president is really describing herself as the change candidate, saying, we're not going back. Obviously, the days of the Trump administration -- and President Trump and many Republicans are trying to label her as a radical leftist, socialist, aligning her with California and failed policies there.

This week, not only from Kamala Harris, but from those we heard speaking, set to define her differently as a moderate, a sane person speaking to the center of the party. Do you think that that was effective in terms of reaching those independent and undecided voters?

LUCE: Well, I think doubtfully, you know, I think from some of the focus groups of undecideds who are watching this -- it looks like a lot of them, a majority were swayed and convinced.

[10:40:08]

I mean, I think, she he does have one advantage in that having basically taken the nomination on the same day that Joe Biden stepped down, precisely five weeks ago today, she didn't have to go through a recent primary campaign in which the drift of, you know, politics and the Democratic Party might have pulled her into taking left-wing positions that would be much, much more fresh in people's memory than the 2020 primaries where she did take some more leftist positions.

She has been able, I think, to distance herself from those positions, anti-fracking, more sympathetic to the open border, policy of the left, et cetera. I think she has been quite effective because of that advantage in making it much harder to pin her down as this extremist Berkeley California liberal the Trump campaign undoubtedly going to keep trying to pin on her in the next 10 weeks.

GOLODRYGA: Specifically on the issue of foreign policy, she really outlined a strong projection of U.S. power on the global stage, continuing a lot of Biden's policies with regards to alliances, support for Ukraine. The role she played, she noted, the days before Russia's illegal invasion, the second invasion in 2022, when she spent time with the Munich Security Conference with President Zelenskyy. She even seemed to navigate what was really a controversial topic here amongst Democrats, and that is the war in Gaza, while both stating her support for Israel's security and Israel's right to defend itself, and defining Hamas as a terrorist organization, while also being very empathetic to the suffering in Gaza, and saying that the ceasefire needs to be put in place, and that Palestinians there deserve self -- a right to self-determination as well.

How is this all viewed from the global stage, specifically from world leaders?

LUCE: I think that the world was expecting because many people here were forecasting that there would be really difficult street demonstrations on a large scale during this convention, and the want, of course. And I think what they, and maybe we, underestimated was that a lot of the protesters are able to see the difference between Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

She is able -- even though she's enunciating the same policy as Biden's policy towards the Israel-Gaza situation, she's able to signal deep sympathy for the civilian casualties in Gaza. And so, I think the benefit of the doubt was given by a lot of the protesters and that's why, you know, they didn't really -- they didn't really hit any critical level. They didn't really distract from the convention. This was nothing like 1968.

So, she threaded that needle very well because she reiterated quite rightly that America has Israel's back at the same time. Larger foreign policy signals -- the one thing I did note is that she only used the word China once --

GOLODRYGA: Yes.

LUCE: -- in that speech. And that was to, you know, sort of kind of milquetoast way to say, America will win the 21st century, not China. But she didn't get involved in that. And I suspect she'll -- she'll have to get a little bit more specific on whether she's going to be a continuation of Biden on China or whether she has a different perspective.

GOLODRYGA: Ed Luce, still a very close race. As you note, Democratic talk of her impending victory is a dangerously premature at this point. We still have 70 odd days left and an important debate coming up next month.

Great to see you. Thanks so much for joining us.

LUCE: Always a pleasure. Thank you.

GOLODRYGA: And up next on GPS, America's entry into the Iraq war, more than 20 years ago, hinged on the belief that Saddam Hussein was pursuing weapons of mass destruction. The top-right journalist Steve Coll has done an extraordinarily deep dive on the Iraqi dictator's real intentions. Hear the eye-opening results when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:49:05]

GOLODRYGA: We are less than three weeks away from the 23rd anniversary of September 11th. The attacks that day killed almost 3,000 people and spawned two American wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, that cost trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives.

You could fill small libraries with the amount that has been written about those wars. But my next guest has been looking at the war in Iraq from a different perspective, from the point of view of the man at the center of it, Saddam Hussein.

In Steve Coll's new book, "The Achilles Trap," he combs through thousands of hours of secret conversations between the Iraqi dictator and his inner circle. Coll is dean emeritus of Columbia's journalism school, and an editor at "The Economist." He's also a two-time Pulitzer prize winner. Fareed spoke with him recently.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Steve, pleasure to have you on.

STEVE COLL, DEAN EMERITUS, COLUMBIA JOURNALISM SCHOOL: Thanks for having me.

[10:50:00]

ZAKARIA: Your books are always great. This is no exception. So, answer the basic question first. Why did the United States and many other intelligence agencies think Saddam Hussein had various levels and various kinds of weapons of mass destruction when it turned out he had none?

COLL: Well, because he did something that was hard to understand. After the war over his invasion of Kuwait, he destroyed his stocks and a lot of his infrastructure, but then he didn't really come clean about what he had done. He essentially instructed his son-in-law to take his chemical weapons into the desert in the night and pour them into the sand without keeping any records or photographs. And then it took four or five years before he really started to tell the truth to the disarmament inspectors who were the world's kind of watchdogs about the demand that he disarmed from these dangerous weapons that he had used before.

So later, he threw the inspectors out and extrapolating from past experience and befuddled by the unanswered questions the intelligence community has concluded through interpretation that he must still have these programs and these weapons.

ZAKARIA: What did you learn from listening to these hours of Saddam's tapes? What was the nature of that regime?

COLL: Well, he was a man in full in some ways. He ruled through terror, but also through charisma and patronage. He was --

ZAKARIA: Was he smart? COLL: He was shrewd about power. He could be incredibly prescient about the way power was organized in the world. When the Soviet Union collapsed, he was adamant right away. They're finished. Russia is finished. And the U.S. is going to be hegemonic for a while. So, watch out.

But then in the next paragraph, he would speak of some deep-seated conspiracy around the idea that, for example, Ayatollah Khomeini was an American project sent to menace him. So, if you were listening to him as one of his comrades you might end up with a little bit of whiplash.

ZAKARIA: You say in the book that one of the lessons you drew is America doesn't know how to deal with this kind of authoritarian regime. Explain what you mean.

COLL: Well, we perform for our domestic politics. We don't really have the means to empathize in the sense of see the world from our adversary's viewpoint in fullness. And -- which struggle with predicting intentions as a result.

In Saddam's case, we could have understood that, for example, late in his regime, he had become obsessed with novel writing, had lost interest in military affairs, was worried that his own scientists hadn't followed his orders and destroyed his WMD.

All these fragments of information that we could have collected if we had been in contact, conceivably, but which we did -- we weren't bothered because we had a regime change policy. We folded her arms and kind of did a performance for our own domestic audiences.

ZAKARIA: When you were doing the research, did you find -- did you learn anything that overturned a kind of -- something you thought? You know, what were the most surprising things you learned?

COLL: Well, I was obsessed with the assassination attempt that was attributed to Saddam against George H.W. Bush. You may remember in -- after President Bush's presidency, he visited Kuwait, the country he had liberated, and he was celebrated. And after he left without any incident during his visit, the Kuwaitis announced about a week later that they had foiled an assassination attempt against him.

Now, it's a long story, but essentially the records to me show that it's doubtful that there was a real assassination attempt and that became a legend, I think, within the Bush family for understandable reasons, and some people describe it as a motivation in George W. Bush's time.

ZAKARIA: What he said apparently -- privately.

COLL: Privately.

ZAKARIA: He tried to kill my dad.

COLL: Yes, and Jeb Bush said that publicly. So, it was certainly in the discourse of the family. ZAKARIA: When you came out of this book and you watched the debate over Putin, and will he invade and what -- you know, what would it take to get him to stop and compromise, do you draw any lessons?

COLL: I mean, one thing in the correct forecast of his decision to invade was a reminder that America's intelligence is best when it relies on technical means. We really are capable of surveillance and -- with the Five Eyes, we can get a lot of things right if that's what is at issue.

In Saddam's case it wasn't helpful because he was analog, and never on the phone, and impossible to see. The second thing I thought was that we don't know really at some level what is driving Vladimir Putin's decision making in his innermost circle.

We may have a hypothesis about it. We may have fragments of accurate information. But to me the lesson going back over Saddam's very unusually documented case was we really didn't know what he was thinking time after time.

[10:55:09]

ZAKARIA: And maybe we should be trying to talk to the Russians to see what it is they want.

COLL: Yes. I mean, back-channels, contacts. If over -- contacts are politically problematic, fine. But there's really no reason to completely isolate an adversary, if there's shared agendas as there obviously is with Russia.

ZAKARIA: Steve Coll, as I say, always -- always great stuff. And this one is no exception. Thank you.

COLL: Thanks, Fareed.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GOLODRYGA: Well, thanks to all of you for being part of the program this week. Fareed has a new special next Sunday called "REENGINEERING LIFE: THE NEXT FRONTIERS IN SCIENCE." He'll be back right here in the anchor chair the Sunday after that.

ZAKARIA: If you ever missed a show, you can always listen to my podcast. Go to CNN.com/Fareed for a link so you can listen on whatever app you use.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)